1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Logic 9 Any - "No latency" - solutions for Logic??

Discussion in 'Logic 9' started by jazzjazz, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. jazzjazz

    jazzjazz New Member


    Are there any good "No latency" interfaces/solutions for Logic?

    Just upgraded from a system running Logic with Pro Tools DAE/TDM audio. (Recording through Pro Tools 96 I/O interface)
    Here I was used to "no audible" latency as all audio/recording processing was handled on the DSP farms on my HD accel cards.

    Now running latest Logic (native obviously), and need a solution that can provide the same "No Latency" monitoring as my previous DAE system, regardless of the size of my Logic session.

    I found that RME has got a few options, which also supplies DSP power for basic FX for monitoring, which is really cool!

    Don't necessarily need more than 4-8 inputs.
    It's essential that I won't have to alter my Logic buffer size, plugins etc - but can switch off all software monitoring in Logic, monitor through the interface and just press "rec" and go!..... with no latency! :)

    A bit of a novice in the "native" field - so any ideas?

  3. georgelegeriii

    georgelegeriii Senior member

    Most nonDSP based audio system have "no latency"/" real time" monitoring via some kind of mixer app. To be totally honest, all systems have a few samples difference to absolute real time, but then PT has the same sample conversion issue as ALL systems that use a A/D and D/A converter.

    So, you can use this mixer to overcome the latency. A few things to be aware of though: If you put any high latency plug-ins into your audio path, that will effect things, so you would most likely wanna use Logics' ability to do a dsp bypass for plug-ins that will add this.

    Also, you can't use Logics DSP for anything: you will need to compress on input or your dynamics when doing something like vocals will be impossible to work with. A very good input signal path is VITAL. The higher quality the better, so you can do compression and EQ when recording.

    The RME solutions are the best I think, love their "total mix" app.

    This is also a long conversation, one that IMO can't be really gone over with much detail. This is gonna come as you start to work with Logic and use the tools. Only you can decide of the tools you are going to use, and each decision will alter any realworld answer I or anyone else can give...

    So, maybe a better questions would be: I have a (name system here, RME for example) and need help figuring out the best way to do my real time stuff.

    *Stay away from firewire solutions... they have a built in latency that can't be overcome. PCI-e is your best way.

    That's my 2 cents...
  4. mt100uk

    mt100uk Senior member

    If you're using the built in analogue-digital converters on the interface get the best you can afford (subjective I know!) I hate to contradict George but higher end FW interfaces with a fast computer can get very low latencies these days. As you've suggested interfaces with dsp/mixers obviate the need for software (and inevitably slower) monitoring and this is definitely the way to go IMO. I use 2x2882s and an m-audio 2626 and with the built in dsp mixer get inaudible monitoring latency with verb, dynamics and eq etc. I've heard great things about rme as well. Ultimately get the best AD/DA by channel count you can afford/need, pretty much all higher end multi channel interfaces have some kind of mixer and most have some kind of dsp for channel strips/reverb etc.

    Hope this helps!
  5. georgelegeriii

    georgelegeriii Senior member

    A high end computer and good interface can get is this: 64 buffer (if you can actually use this for any kind of a larger arrangement using more than a couple of VI's and no IR reverbs) and 3 samples for a grand total of about 4 MS round trip, fast but not close to Protools real time (or 3 samples).

    A more realistic time amount is 128 buffer and the 3 samples, for about 9 MS return.

    While all that is quick, try having a vocalist sing through that... some can, some can't. Or a guitar player playing a real funky part: that 9 MS can completely screw up a performance.

    I am used to a native system and have been using one for the better part of 15 years now, and can deal with the latency on my own, but often have vocalists come into my studio who can't stand ANY latency (well, the 3 sample thing isn't really anything anyone can feel, since it's less than 1 MS).

    I'm not saying ANY of these are high (a guy standing 2o ft away from an amp gets more latency, and most midi to midi devices have 20 MS or more, and people have never compained about them), but compared to laying through a PT TDM/Accell system, 1 MS is slow ;-)

    In your specific case, you care doing exactly what I suggested for best latency: using a mixer app from an interface that also supplies it's own DSP.

    So, I suggest you were in fact supporting the things I said...
  6. gdoubleyou

    gdoubleyou Senior member

    Take a look at the UA Apollo, I recently picked up a Duo.

    The Console allows you to use the DSP before audio reaches Logic, and to configure headphone and monitor mixes and routing.

  7. mt100uk

    mt100uk Senior member

    No worries George, I just wanted to reassure that PCIe I/O's weren't a necessity for low latency.
  8. georgelegeriii

    georgelegeriii Senior member

    The Apollo has the very nice UAD plug-ins that are also now pretty much real time.

    Q about the 2882s and an m-audio 2626: they are firewire? What is the latency minimum if you have to go through them (using Logic as the DSP)?
  9. mt100uk

    mt100uk Senior member

    To be honest I have no idea, I always use the 2882's dsp for foldback monitoring, it sounds as good as any au's I have heard, so much so that I bought and use heavily the MH AU bundle. In particular the haloverb reverb and channelstrip are superb for foldback when tracking vocals, pretty much all my clients comment on how good the headphones sound. I keep my buffer low for Midi/AU recording so that's the only "live" thing within logic and never use software monitoring.
  10. jazzjazz

    jazzjazz New Member

    Thank you all so much for your inputs, it's valuable info - however "going native" still seems a lot more complex coming from a PT HD platform :)

    Does anyone now if e.g. the RME UFX/UCX via firewire will give me "no latency" monitoring + fx, regardless of my Logic settings (as long as software monitoring in Logic is off)?

    Anyone knows if Apogee have DSP (comp/eq/Rev FX) for any of their solutions?

    George - I hear you regarding FW vs. PCIe - but having trouble finding a PCIe with DSP fx on board - do you know of any?

    Thanks again guys for all your inputs - it's a great help!
  11. CSeye

    CSeye Senior member

    Just curious as to why you don't want to have to change the I/O buffer? It's just the way native works. Maybe the use of a small external mixer is the solution to your need for "no latency". There are audio interface/mixers available...

    No DSP in the Apogee.

    MOTU PCIe and FW interfaces have DSP.

    Your search engine is your friend.
  12. jazzjazz

    jazzjazz New Member

    Hi CSeye.

    Thank you for your reply.
    Yes - my search engine is indeed my friend, but it's always nice to hear other peoples opinions and experiences when moving into unfamiliar territory:)
    And coming from a "no nonsense" (when it comes to monitoring) HD platform - Logic certainly is a different ball game.

    I'm very often running heavy sessions with loads of plugs, instr, busses etc etc. Therefore, decreasing buffer size can sometimes cause Logic to struggle a bit - which is not what we want:) Hope this explains.

    Thanks again
  13. mt100uk

    mt100uk Senior member

    I can appreciate the hassle compared to PT, it does involve using your interfaces software as well as logics but once you find a workflow that fits you're style I think you'll find it more than a match for protools.
  14. CSeye

    CSeye Senior member


    That certainly makes sense.

    I've been doing only native since I started with computer-based music production and have adjusted to how it works. For example, I'll first track what I need dry or with low cpu load plug-ins if any, at a low I/O, then switch to 1024 to shape the final mix.

    My mostly software instrument projects are smaller so I rarely have to do this, but freezing tracks is another option if you need to track at a low I/O late in the development of a project.


    There are many benefits to going native, and a range of hardware/software solutions for minimizing latency.
  15. jazzjazz

    jazzjazz New Member

    Thanks again.

    Just found the UAD Apollo...... looks like it's doing the job exactly - anyone tried it?
  16. georgelegeriii

    georgelegeriii Senior member

    I don't have one but I do swear by their plug-ins. The UAD stuff is among the VERY best sounding plug-ins out.
  17. gdoubleyou

    gdoubleyou Senior member

    Yep, works as advertised.

    So far I love being able to track with a Neve channelstrip, or put a compressor on a vocal.

    I haven't com close to maxing out my MBP.
    I just wanted to improve my mixes, UA models a lot of the hardware they make.

    I can't afford their hardware processors, UAD is the next best thing.


    Check out the videos on the UA site.
  18. TerryReis

    TerryReis New Member

    Been using one since they first came out, lot of advantages.
    The plugins have recently been upgraded to 64bit which makes it a lot more usable with logic.
    The mixer interface (or console application as they call it) is due for an upgrade shortly which will address a number of routing options people have been complaining about (not an issue for me).

    I have added the thunderbolt option to mine and now expanded it with a UAD 2 Quad in an expansion chassis.

    It would appear to me that the company's main focus is Mac and Logic, works great with these. I do see a number of Pro Tools/ Cubase/ Sonar/ Cakewalk and Windows users on the bulletin boards complaining of various issues.

    The biggest surprise for me was the pre amp / convertors, excellent quality for this price point and such a flexible tool.

    The plugins on the surface are quite expensive but there are constant offers/coupons etc. I have about half of the plugs on offer and have paid approx half of the list price on average, patience is a virtue with this system.

    As said before the plugins sound great, generally accepted as being amongst the best.

    Using the plugins on the console for zero latency does what is says on the box. It just works. They even have a amp sim now which even if the sounds are not totally to your liking, you can use it for tracking and then run it through a native solution later.

    Very happy with the system as a whole and UA are constantly updating.

    For what you have described I would suggest it is well worth a look.


  19. jazzjazz

    jazzjazz New Member

    Thanks Terry

    Priceless info!
    Sounds like that's the way to go.

    My Mac Pro (8 Core, 2008) has no Thunderbolt, so I will have to use it with firewire.
    But that should still not be an issue regarding monitoring latency should it?

    Thanks again! :)
  20. TerryReis

    TerryReis New Member

    I don't believe so, you still use the plugins from the Apollo console before the signal gets to Logic when tracking. You can decide wether or not to record the effect of the plugs or send the dry signal and reprocess later (my preference).

    So for this I do not believe there is any difference between FW and TB.

    Check out the user group:http://uadforum.com/forum.php

    There are people waxing lyrical on the relative merits of TB vs FW, it's all a bit above my head. Not sure I saw a massive difference between the two.


  21. CSeye

    CSeye Senior member

    Latency will not be an issue. Maximum number of plug-ins will be: 58 stereo or 116 mono plug-in instances. Read Notes at the bottom here: http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/compatibility/instance-chart.html

    No issues here running my Satellite Quad via FW 800 to my 2010 i5 MacBook Pro. So you should be fine as your Mac Pro model has FW 800 ports. To be sure read through the Partially Compatible Mac Systems here:

    Side Note: I have the option to trade in my Ensemble (world class sonic performance, but problematic drivers for the past two years...) towards the Apollo Duo. Not for latency issues as in your case, but for stability and expandability via Thunderbolt in the near future.

Share This Page